{"title":"Legislative scrutiny in the United States: dynamic, whole-stream revision","authors":"Sean J. Kealy","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2021.1904568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Legislative drafting in the United States Congress is a dynamic process with many actors working to revise both a bill’s policy and language. Rather than a central drafting office or government agency responsible for drafting bills, legislative language and amendments come from many sources: Congressional committee staff, the House and Senate Offices of Legislative Counsel, special interest lobbyists, and executive agencies. The hope is that bills become stronger and better drafted as it moves through the process; but that is not always the case. In addition, Congress still does not use a single standard drafting style. Still, there have been improvements in recent decades. For example, the House of Representatives developed a preferred drafting style and created a manual to guide drafters. However, Congress can and should do more to improve legislative quality. In this article I suggest several reforms: empowering the committee chairs to not just guide legislation through Congress, but promote better quality legislation; requiring greater drafting style standardisation; creating new materials and trainings to assist legislative actors, particularly committee staff, to recognise defective drafting and appreciate the value of careful drafting practices; and creating a advisory commission that will bring together key drafting participants to propose further reforms.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2021.1904568","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2021.1904568","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT Legislative drafting in the United States Congress is a dynamic process with many actors working to revise both a bill’s policy and language. Rather than a central drafting office or government agency responsible for drafting bills, legislative language and amendments come from many sources: Congressional committee staff, the House and Senate Offices of Legislative Counsel, special interest lobbyists, and executive agencies. The hope is that bills become stronger and better drafted as it moves through the process; but that is not always the case. In addition, Congress still does not use a single standard drafting style. Still, there have been improvements in recent decades. For example, the House of Representatives developed a preferred drafting style and created a manual to guide drafters. However, Congress can and should do more to improve legislative quality. In this article I suggest several reforms: empowering the committee chairs to not just guide legislation through Congress, but promote better quality legislation; requiring greater drafting style standardisation; creating new materials and trainings to assist legislative actors, particularly committee staff, to recognise defective drafting and appreciate the value of careful drafting practices; and creating a advisory commission that will bring together key drafting participants to propose further reforms.
期刊介绍:
The Theory and Practice of Legislation aims to offer an international and interdisciplinary forum for the examination of legislation. The focus of the journal, which succeeds the former title Legisprudence, remains with legislation in its broadest sense. Legislation is seen as both process and product, reflection of theoretical assumptions and a skill. The journal addresses formal legislation, and its alternatives (such as covenants, regulation by non-state actors etc.). The editors welcome articles on systematic (as opposed to historical) issues, including drafting techniques, the introduction of open standards, evidence-based drafting, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny for effectiveness and efficiency, the utility and necessity of codification, IT in legislation, the legitimacy of legislation in view of fundamental principles and rights, law and language, and the link between legislator and judge. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. But dogmatic descriptions of positive law are outside the scope of the journal. The journal offers a combination of themed issues and general issues. All articles are submitted to double blind review.